If you cant beat it , join it....says Elon Musk

[8ball]

Yeah. Patch me in.

Me too.

 

[8ball]

For "telepathy" we'd need a revolutionary understanding of how the mind works. We don't know what a "thought" is at all, let alone how to stimulate one.

Bizarre also that even though we communicate in such complexity, we don't even know if the basic formats and "protocols" would even be compatible. I think you'd need a complicated "handshaking" system of a currently unknown form.

 

[weltweit]

I recently read of people with spinal cord paralysis having some functioning nerve endings connected to their paralysed legs.

Apparently their brains learnt to control their limbs even though they were using nerves that had formerly been used for something completely different.

 

[JuanTwoThree]

Musk. I smeĺl a rat.

 

[8ball]

Very coarsely. This article is a good summary of the current state of the art: Musk’s newest startup is venturing into a series of hard problems . This is with hundreds of electrodes. THe neuralink technology is getting up to 1000s. There are 100,000,000,000 cells in your brain, so there's a long way to go...

I don't think the number of cells is that relevant to the problem here.

 

[weltweit]

I am sure it is doable, complicated for sure but eventually it will be done, a connection between a human and a computer. But that said, how this business becomes profitable is a different issue, presumably they will charge for each connection, but how much and how many will want it and be able to pay the price?

 

[8ball]

I am sure it is doable, complicated for sure but eventually it will be done, a connection between a human and a computer. But that said, how this business becomes profitable is a different issue, presumably they will charge for each connection, but how much and how many will want it and be able to pay the price?

Who says the end customer is the person with the chip in their head?

<shudders>

 

[weltweit]

I was just looking for an image from the Matrix when they plugged each other in ..

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Ray Kurzweil popularised this idea and called it the 'singularity'.

I read a free online book about this a few years ago which was ace. Fiction, of course. The book itself was absolutely shite, but the opening chapter or two where the explonential explosion in intelligence is described was so good. Shame I can't remember the name.

Also, I started a thread on this (that didn't get too much interest, but very interesting discussion on its few pages): Singularity watch - the future is already here

This was one link I shared, in 2013: Brain-to-brain interface lets rats share information via internet

And I also started another thread, on basically the same topic but more rooted in current tech: Machine Learning (Skynet is coming thread)

I think Musk/Kurzweil are right. But I probably don't agree with the timescales. But we're definitely in an accelating area where it comes to this kind of thing and it fascinates and scares me in equal measures.

It's been a theme in sci fi for a good while now.

 

[weltweit]

It's been a theme in sci fi for a good while now.

Iain M Banks Culture series you could download a copy of yourself before going mountain climbing so that if you died, your essence could be uploaded into a new clone body and you would continue your life.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Iain M Banks Culture series you could download a copy of yourself before going mountain climbing so that if you died, your essence could be uploaded into a new clone body and you would continue your life.

I was thinking less far future then that, but yeah, love the culture universe.

 

[sovereignb]

Me too.

Really, why?

 

[sovereignb]

I recently read of people with spinal cord paralysis having some functioning nerve endings connected to their paralysed legs.

Apparently their brains learnt to control their limbs even though they were using nerves that had formerly been used for something completely different.

And that goes to show the power of the human body without the need for artificial intelligence...if we choose to tap in/let it be manipulated in the most appropriate way.

 

[8ball]

Really, why?

Keyboard and mouse is so *slow*

 

[Baronage-Phase]

I was just looking for an image from the Matrix when they plugged each other in ..

 

[sovereignb]

Keyboard and mouse is so *slow*

Hoping your being sarcastic but yes I imagine many thinking that would an appropriate reason to show interest

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Keyboard and mouse is so *slow*

And augmented vision would be pretty awesome.

 

[kabbes]

What exactly is the interface supposed to be interfacing? The brain doesn’t work like a computer. Human memory doesn’t work like computer memory (not by a very very long shot). Human thought processes don’t work like computer logic (almost the opposite). I don’t understand where this interface is supposed to be happening in practice.

It sounds good... if you have no understanding of computers and brains. Otherwise, it just sounds like nonsense, so far as I can work out.

 

[chemn]

I don't think the number of cells is that relevant to the problem here.

Why not? Having a fundamental understanding of all parts of the brain is surely of great importance for such an undertaking. If the brain had a limited number of cells it would be easier to understand what it is doing.

What exactly is the interface supposed to be interfacing? The brain doesn’t work like a computer. Human memory doesn’t work like computer memory (not by a very very long shot). Human thought processes don’t work like computer logic (almost the opposite). I don’t understand where this interface is supposed to be happening in practice.

It sounds good... if you have no understanding of computers and brains. Otherwise, it just sounds like nonsense, so far as I can work out.

I agree that there are substantial differences between organic matter and digital devices. But whilst the workings are different, our brains do carry out computations in the broader sense, and our memory carries out a very similar function to digital memory, but obviously in a less objective manner.

It's not surprising we can't conceive of such an interface, because we're clearly a long way off such a thing, and if we could we'd be genius neuroscientists, who would be working on the issue currently.

But yeah, Musk does a good job of coming across as a Bond villain type ...

 

[kabbes]

I agree that there are substantial differences between organic matter and digital devices. But whilst the workings are different, our brains do carry out computations in the broader sense, and our memory carries out a very similar function to digital memory, but obviously in a less objective manner.

It's not surprising we can't conceive of such an interface, because we're clearly a long way off such a thing, and if we could we'd be genius neuroscientists, who would be working on the issue currently.

I honestly don’t think that’s right, from my admittedly limited study of neuroscience to date. Our brains don’t carry out “computations” in the sense that a digital system does. They mostly react to changing chemical signals, which gives them a deeply analogue pathway. It’s more a case of working backwards than forwards. And memory is simply not encoded into the human brain in the way that memory is stored by a computer. It’s a complex mix of procedural and declarative memory, episodic and semantic, implicit and explicit. Some of it is encoded as repetitive action rather than thought (implicit and procedural). Some is encoded as emotional content. The explicit episodic memory that is most analogous to computer memory is still based on reliving emotional context rather than encoding details.

It’s inconceivable to me how any of this could be compatible with a computer chip and I’m going to need some proper explanation to be convinced, not just some hand waving on the basis of “clever neuroscientists”.

 

[chemn]

Yes, as I said, substantial differences between organic matter and digital devices. Not only in form but how it all works too, of course.

I don't have the answers, but I don't think such a thing is impossible.

 

[kabbes]

Yes, as I said, substantial differences between organic matter and digital devices. Not only in form but how it all works too, of course.

I don't have the answers, but I don't think such a thing is impossible.

Why don’t you think it’s impossible?

 

[DotCommunist]

I've become convinced that the genemods are more realistic in the medium to near future, the hard headtech is out for many of the reasons kabbes gives. Plus the body really dislikes this sort of thing you know my brother wore an implant for his bone induction hearing aid, that metal anchor bit in his head was difficult t install, delicate, intrusive and had to be kept obsessively clean and moisturized. Never healed into metal & man, was always half healed and red. Imagine suppurating sore holes in your body where you plug into the machine. No.

Whereas genemods are here now, and inheritable. I can see GATTACA, a literal genetic caste system. Need to do something about that before it hapens

 

[chemn]

Why don’t you think it’s impossible?

I guess I'm a technological optimist. Looking at advancements in tech over the last 100 years, and assuming that society remains stable-ish over the next 100 years, it would be reasonable to assume that there will be leaps and bounds resulting in innovations which are currently inconceivable.

I appreciate the problems you raise with such interfacing, and the problems with implants raised by DotCommunist, these are massive challenges to a fluid brain-computer interface. But I don't think they're insurmountable. Though we may never achieve the invention of a powerful (or even simple!) general AI, if this is achieved, then this is the sort of problem that it could be good at solving, if it doesn't go horribly wrong and decide to do away with all humans for the sake of AI-kind and it's robotic brethren

 

[kabbes]

I appreciate the optimism (really!) but I do think we need hardheaded thinking about what is literally possible based on the approach being taken. All the optimism in the world won’t allow us to build a steam engine that flies to Mars.

 

[Crispy]

sounds good... if you have no understanding of computers and brains. Otherwise, it just sounds like nonsense, so far as I can work out.

It is not nonsense. Prototypes of this sort of technology have allowed blind people to "see" and paraplegic people to control robot arms. The brain is very plastic and can learn to use even quite coarse electrodes as new inputs/outputs. If a blind person can "see" with a cacophony of tones in each ear or a grid of 400 electrodes on their tongue, with that novel sensory input having to go via touch sensors, nerves and a re-adapted part of the brain, imagine what a grid of 40,000 electrodes ddirectly in the visual cortex will be able to do.

This isn't going to be "I know kung fu" or a terminator-style heads-up display in your mind's eye, or telepathy. It'll be things like controlling an electricl wheelchair or a prosthetic arm as naturally as you would your own limbs.

 

[kabbes]

It is not nonsense. Prototypes of this sort of technology have allowed blind people to "see" and paraplegic people to control robot arms. The brain is very plastic and can learn to use even quite coarse electrodes as new inputs/outputs. If a blind person can "see" with a grid of 400 electrodes on their tongue, with that novel sensory input having to go via touch sensors, nerves and a re-adapted part of the brain, imagine what a grid of 40,000 electrodes ddirectly in the visual cortex will be able to do.

This isn't going to be "I know kung fu" or a terminator-style heads-up display in your mind's eye, or telepathy. It'll be things like controlling an electricl wheelchair or a prosthetic arm as naturally as you would your own limbs.

Thats fair enough if that’s all we’re talking about. The nonsense is the wider claims about enhanced memory and neural interfacing with computers to obtain faster processing speed.

 

[Crispy]

Thats fair enough if that’s all we’re talking about. The nonsense is the wider claims about enhanced memory and neural interfacing with computers to obtain faster processing speed.

I think a crude form of this could happen quite quickly. Even the sledgehammer of fMRI can be used to distinguish between various thoughts and predict their outcome. Imagine you have one of these implants and you go through the following training:

Think about the number 1 for 5 seconds
Think about the number 2 for 5 seconds
Think about the number 3 for 5 seconds
...
Think about the operation "multiply" for 5 seconds
Think about the operation "divide" for 5 seconds

Then you think deliberately "hey brainplug, 5 4 3 multiply 2 2 8"
And then you hear, inside your head, a comupter voice say "123,804"

And that's the very first step.

With machine learning interpreting your brain, and brain plasticity interpreting the inputs, we might not need fundamental understanding of the brain to implement useful interfaces.

 

[kabbes]

I think a crude form of this could happen quite quickly. Even the sledgehammer of fMRI can be used to distinguish between various thoughts and predict their outcome. Imagine you have one of these implants and you go through the following training:

Think about the number 1 for 5 seconds
Think about the number 2 for 5 seconds
Think about the number 3 for 5 seconds
...
Think about the operation "multiply" for 5 seconds
Think about the operation "divide" for 5 seconds

Then you think deliberately "hey brainplug, 5 4 3 multiply 2 2 8"
And then you hear, inside your head, a comupter voice say "123,804"

And that's the very first step.

With machine learning interpreting your brain, and brain plasticity interpreting the inputs, we might not need fundamental understanding of the brain to implement useful interfaces.

This is where it enters science fiction. Two things, really:

1) using fMRI to find individual thoughts is like using a fold-out map of the world to find a footpath in your local woods. The resolution is crazily low compared to what you would need to get even close. The best fMRI can't really do better than a 1mm resolution over a time scale of about 1 second. That's a space that would contain literally billions of neurons firing thousands of times.

2) that's not how the brain works anyway. If you think about 1 and then the next day you think about 1, it will almost certainly not involve exactly the same brain pathways. You always exist in a context and your thinking responds to that context, making new connections and using different ones to form the same thoughts. That's one of the ways your brain is fundamentally different to a computer. Yes, we can say that there is a broad region responsible for dealing with numbers. But we can't say that thinking about "1" fires this specific neuron, even within a single brain.

 

[kabbes]

You see, the human brain is hermaneutic in structure. Nothing exists without context, meaning, interpretation. When you think about “1”, that’s never just “1”. It’s 1 something, or 1 as a concept (within a wider conceptual framework) or 1 meaning single, alone, isolation. Or 1 meaning the self. Or some other connection to “oneness”. In each case, the brain will be responding differently, forming patterns and new contexts.

Computers don’t work like that. They don’t make interpretations. 1 is just 1.